Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
801

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
The argument of something being created from nothing is a misnomer.

The big bang theory is not ‘first there was nothing and then it exploded’

It is, ‘matter existed in one state and then during an event now commonly known as the big bang it changed to a different state that rapidly expanded to form today’s known Universe.’

Current theories that hold a lot of weight are that what we refer to as the big bang was actually a localised quantum level expansion of a far larger multiverse.

You could think of it as a bubble of CO2 appearing in your coke. The CO2 didn’t just burst into existence from nothingness, it changed from a dissolved state to a gaseous state.

If you want to get really freaky, at a quantum level you can observe matter bursting into existence in a laboratory.

Conservation of energy is maintained because what you are actually getting is a matter/anti-matter pair. So the net Energy is zero.

Some really odd shit starts happening once you look at things down to the quantum level. For anyone interested in this kind of thing I would recommend Gribbons In Search of Schrödinger?s cat serious as a good primer.

…a voice of reason a like a warm bath on these boards (-:

It does not surprise me in the least that you would agree with this ass clown. You two are made for each other.

Tell me where I am wrong in anything I have written above then.[/quote]

Sure. There isn’t a shred of evidence to support whether there was something or nothing before the “big bang.” Do you really want to challenge that?

802

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

If you want to get really freaky, at a quantum level you can observe matter bursting into existence in a laboratory.

Tell me where I am wrong in anything I have written above then.[/quote]

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy under normal conditions cannot be created or destroyed, simply transformed from one type of energy to another.

If something was to form from nothing like you are trying to state that would violate this first law. Maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong but it sounds to me like your trying to say shit is just showing up out of no where.

One could also use the first law to state that something had to have been there before the big bang. But I am sure you where just talking out your ass and have no clue about what the hell you are saying.

803

[quote]John S. wrote:

You are all those things too. What you just explained right there is the human nature. Because I have faith I am Irrational. You believe in science “Theorys” which change ever what ever 10-20 years? One of us is easy to manipulate and it is not me.[/quote]

Nice.

804

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
John S. wrote:

You are all those things too. What you just explained right there is the human nature. Because I have faith I am Irrational. You believe in science “Theorys” which change ever what ever 10-20 years? One of us is easy to manipulate and it is not me.

Nice. [/quote]

I will say the same thing to your posts in this thread too. Its good to see someone who knows what there talking about here in this thread.

805

Most organized religions and atheism are inherently unscientific. They both deal in absolutes with no scientific proof.

But the fact remains that secular civilization has gone leaps and bounds beyond religious civilizations. Religion used to be a necessary force to run a country and advance society, but now it isn’t.

Why I say this is because intelligent design is nothing more than poorly disguised creationism. Even in this small thread on a small corner of the interwebz, we have people talking about their faith and how it’s better than science.

If you want to learn creationism, or want your kids to learn it then teach it to them yourselves or send them to Sunday school. Last time I checked there are no laws to stop you from doing so.

806

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Most organized religions and atheism are inherently unscientific. They both deal in absolutes with no scientific proof.

But the fact remains that secular civilization has gone leaps and bounds beyond religious civilizations. Religion used to be a necessary force to run a country and advance society, but now it isn’t.

Why I say this is because intelligent design is nothing more than poorly disguised creationism. Even in this small thread on a small corner of the interwebz, we have people talking about their faith and how it’s better than science.

If you want to learn creationism, or want your kids to learn it then teach it to them yourselves or send them to Sunday school. Last time I checked there are no laws to stop you from doing so.[/quote]

I don’t think anyone here is saying faith is better then science. Science helps me improve my faith, I love learning about the laws of the universe. Theorys have there place but I will not believe in them till they can be proven and that is what Science is all about.

807

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
The argument of something being created from nothing is a misnomer.

The big bang theory is not ‘first there was nothing and then it exploded’

It is, ‘matter existed in one state and then during an event now commonly known as the big bang it changed to a different state that rapidly expanded to form today’s known Universe.’

Current theories that hold a lot of weight are that what we refer to as the big bang was actually a localised quantum level expansion of a far larger multiverse.

You could think of it as a bubble of CO2 appearing in your coke. The CO2 didn’t just burst into existence from nothingness, it changed from a dissolved state to a gaseous state.

If you want to get really freaky, at a quantum level you can observe matter bursting into existence in a laboratory.

Conservation of energy is maintained because what you are actually getting is a matter/anti-matter pair. So the net Energy is zero.

Some really odd shit starts happening once you look at things down to the quantum level. For anyone interested in this kind of thing I would recommend Gribbons In Search of Schrödinger?s cat serious as a good primer.

…a voice of reason a like a warm bath on these boards (-:

It does not surprise me in the least that you would agree with this ass clown. You two are made for each other.

Tell me where I am wrong in anything I have written above then.

Sure. There isn’t a shred of evidence to support whether there was something or nothing before the “big bang.” Do you really want to challenge that?[/quote]

I want to challenge you on two points. Firstly I didn’t state a fact of what existed before the big bang (which is only currently a theory.)

Secondly their is plenty of evidence of what existed before the big bang. It is extremely fucking complicated though and of course the evidence isn’t conclusive at this stage.

If you want an example of the evidence of what existed before the big bang, lets start of with something small like the entire fucking universe is evidence of what existed before a theoretical big bang.

Of course the Universe is only theoretical. It might not exist. We only believe it to exist with a high probability based on our ability to interact with it. This is of course not proof of anything.

808

[quote]John S. wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

If you want to get really freaky, at a quantum level you can observe matter bursting into existence in a laboratory.

Tell me where I am wrong in anything I have written above then.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy under normal conditions cannot be created or destroyed, simply transformed from one type of energy to another.

If something was to form from nothing like you are trying to state that would violate this first law. Maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong but it sounds to me like your trying to say shit is just showing up out of no where.

One could also use the first law to state that something had to have been there before the big bang. But I am sure you where just talking out your ass and have no clue about what the hell you are saying.[/quote]

At a quantum level energetic particals are popping into existence and popping out of existence all the time. On average the amount of them in existence in the Universe at any time is constant this is what drives the 1st law of thermodynamics. Where you to focus on any given partical for long enough however it might cease to exist relative to you.

I remember reading an interesting theory that possibly their is actually only one partical in the Universe however it is travelling extremely fast through space and time and gives the appearance of the entire Universe. Can’t remember where I read it, will have to dust off some books.

809

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

their is plenty of evidence of what existed before the big bang. It is extremely fucking complicated though and of course the evidence isn’t conclusive at this stage.
[/quote]

O, really? I’d love to hear what evidence there is. You don’t have to worry about it being too complicated. My brother (who’s a theoretical physicist here in Boston) will explain it to me. To be honest, he’s sitting on the edge of his seat right now wondering how you’re going to answer this.

We just had a howl of a laugh at the below - do you really think that this holds any weight? Tell me, please, that you’re joking.

810

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

If you want to get really freaky, at a quantum level you can observe matter bursting into existence in a laboratory.

Tell me where I am wrong in anything I have written above then.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy under normal conditions cannot be created or destroyed, simply transformed from one type of energy to another.

If something was to form from nothing like you are trying to state that would violate this first law. Maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong but it sounds to me like your trying to say shit is just showing up out of no where.

One could also use the first law to state that something had to have been there before the big bang. But I am sure you where just talking out your ass and have no clue about what the hell you are saying.

At a quantum level energetic particals are popping into existence and popping out of existence all the time. On average the amount of them in existence in the Universe at any time is constant this is what drives the 1st law of thermodynamics. Where you to focus on any given partical for long enough however it might cease to exist relative to you.

.[/quote]

If they were to be “popping in and out of existance” and “The ammount of them anywhere is constant” then there not really popping in and out they are just transfering there energy.

There is not something coming out of nothing as you where trying to first state.

811

.

812

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

there is plenty of evidence of what existed before the big bang. It is extremely fucking complicated though and of course the evidence isn’t conclusive at this stage.

O, really? I’d love to hear what evidence there is. You don’t have to worry about it being too complicated. My brother (who’s a theoretical physicist here in Boston) will explain it to me. To be honest, he’s sitting on the edge of his seat right now wondering how you’re going to answer this.

We just had a howl of a laugh at the below - do you really think that this holds any weight? Tell me, please, that you’re joking.

If you want an example of the evidence of what existed before the big bang, lets start of with something small like the entire fucking universe is evidence of what existed before a theoretical big bang.

[/quote]

I just stated that it was an interesting theory, didn’t say that I believed it.

If your brother is only a theoretical physicist then according to the ID lot there is no evidence that he exists therefore anything that you want to claim is due to him actually was just God.

Back to your other question, every particle in the universe is evidence of what was there before. Pulling that evidence together into a coherent explanation of what happened is very difficult and way beyond me, a non practising Quantum Chemist, though I do enjoy reading about it.

813

[quote]John S. wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

If you want to get really freaky, at a quantum level you can observe matter bursting into existence in a laboratory.

Tell me where I am wrong in anything I have written above then.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy under normal conditions cannot be created or destroyed, simply transformed from one type of energy to another.

If something was to form from nothing like you are trying to state that would violate this first law. Maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong but it sounds to me like your trying to say shit is just showing up out of no where.

One could also use the first law to state that something had to have been there before the big bang. But I am sure you where just talking out your ass and have no clue about what the hell you are saying.

At a quantum level energetic particals are popping into existence and popping out of existence all the time. On average the amount of them in existence in the Universe at any time is constant this is what drives the 1st law of thermodynamics. Where you to focus on any given partical for long enough however it might cease to exist relative to you.

.

If they were to be “popping in and out of existance” and “The ammount of them anywhere is constant” then there not really popping in and out they are just transfering there energy.

There is not something coming out of nothing as you where trying to first state.
[/quote]

No, that’s exactly the point, over an infinite area the amount of is constant, however due to the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in a finite space their will be fluctuations.

814

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

If you want to get really freaky, at a quantum level you can observe matter bursting into existence in a laboratory.

Tell me where I am wrong in anything I have written above then.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy under normal conditions cannot be created or destroyed, simply transformed from one type of energy to another.

If something was to form from nothing like you are trying to state that would violate this first law. Maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong but it sounds to me like your trying to say shit is just showing up out of no where.

One could also use the first law to state that something had to have been there before the big bang. But I am sure you where just talking out your ass and have no clue about what the hell you are saying.

At a quantum level energetic particals are popping into existence and popping out of existence all the time. On average the amount of them in existence in the Universe at any time is constant this is what drives the 1st law of thermodynamics. Where you to focus on any given partical for long enough however it might cease to exist relative to you.

.

If they were to be “popping in and out of existance” and “The ammount of them anywhere is constant” then there not really popping in and out they are just transfering there energy.

There is not something coming out of nothing as you where trying to first state.

No, that’s exactly the point, over an infinite area the amount of is constant, however due to the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in a finite space their will be fluctuations.[/quote]

Sounds like an interesting theory but however as long as the First law of thermodynamics states energy under normal conditions cannot be created or destroyed, simply transformed from one type of energy to another this theory that you have presented can not be true.

Now if you have some material on the matter(maybe a website) I would love to see it.

815

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
As a lifelong anglo-catholic, to be honest I’ve never understood this debate.

God and evolution/intelligence design are eminently compatible.

Believers look at the central, stubborn mystery (“that everything came from nothing”), and posit that perhaps some intelligent being is responsible for creating something out of nothing, and for setting things in motion. Of course, such a supposition proves nothing; but this is not the basis of faith - rather, it follows from it.

So-called atheists look at this mystery and simply try to wish it away, as no scientific theory I know of can account for it. I’m not convinced that this is any more of a “rational” response to the mystery than that of believers.

At any rate, exactly what is the problem here? No one can “prove” that God started this whole thing in motion (though Aquinas comes awfully close); but no one can prove otherwise either.

Until scientists can account for how everything came out of nothing, however, the supposition that God is behind it all is just as plausible as any other narrative.
[/quote]

I actually agree with most of it, no scientific theory will prove there is no god. You don’t have to throw out a god (maybe not exactly as described in the bible) to accept any of the current theories of evolution or cosmology.

The only thing I would say is that every scientific theory that I have seen so far works perfectly well without a god so I don’t feel the need to add a redundant god to the model.

If you choose to then that is fine by me as long as you in no way expect me to pander to your choice, pay for your choice or be in any way hindered by your choice.

816

[quote]John S. wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

If you want to get really freaky, at a quantum level you can observe matter bursting into existence in a laboratory.

Tell me where I am wrong in anything I have written above then.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy under normal conditions cannot be created or destroyed, simply transformed from one type of energy to another.

If something was to form from nothing like you are trying to state that would violate this first law. Maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong but it sounds to me like your trying to say shit is just showing up out of no where.

One could also use the first law to state that something had to have been there before the big bang. But I am sure you where just talking out your ass and have no clue about what the hell you are saying.

At a quantum level energetic particals are popping into existence and popping out of existence all the time. On average the amount of them in existence in the Universe at any time is constant this is what drives the 1st law of thermodynamics. Where you to focus on any given partical for long enough however it might cease to exist relative to you.

.

If they were to be “popping in and out of existance” and “The ammount of them anywhere is constant” then there not really popping in and out they are just transfering there energy.

There is not something coming out of nothing as you where trying to first state.

No, that’s exactly the point, over an infinite area the amount of is constant, however due to the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in a finite space their will be fluctuations.

Sounds like an interesting theory but however as long as the First law of thermodynamics states energy under normal conditions cannot be created or destroyed, simply transformed from one type of energy to another this theory that you have presented can not be true.

Now if you have some material on the matter(maybe a website) I would love to see it.
[/quote]

Quantum Fluctuation is a nice entry level explanation. I would seriously recommend the Schroedinger’s Cat books by John Gribbin as a fantastic and understandable to the layman source of information on this and many of the other fascinating discoveries in the quantum world (certainly a lot more interesting and less dry than my university lectures on the subject were.)

817

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
John S. wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

If you want to get really freaky, at a quantum level you can observe matter bursting into existence in a laboratory.

Tell me where I am wrong in anything I have written above then.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy under normal conditions cannot be created or destroyed, simply transformed from one type of energy to another.

If something was to form from nothing like you are trying to state that would violate this first law. Maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong but it sounds to me like your trying to say shit is just showing up out of no where.

One could also use the first law to state that something had to have been there before the big bang. But I am sure you where just talking out your ass and have no clue about what the hell you are saying.

At a quantum level energetic particals are popping into existence and popping out of existence all the time. On average the amount of them in existence in the Universe at any time is constant this is what drives the 1st law of thermodynamics. Where you to focus on any given partical for long enough however it might cease to exist relative to you.

.

If they were to be “popping in and out of existance” and “The ammount of them anywhere is constant” then there not really popping in and out they are just transfering there energy.

There is not something coming out of nothing as you where trying to first state.

No, that’s exactly the point, over an infinite area the amount of is constant, however due to the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in a finite space their will be fluctuations.

Sounds like an interesting theory but however as long as the First law of thermodynamics states energy under normal conditions cannot be created or destroyed, simply transformed from one type of energy to another this theory that you have presented can not be true.

Now if you have some material on the matter(maybe a website) I would love to see it.

Quantum Fluctuation is a nice entry level explanation. I would seriously recommend the Schroedinger’s Cat books by John Gribbin as a fantastic and understandable to the layman source of information on this and many of the other fascinating discoveries in the quantum world (certainly a lot more interesting and less dry than my university lectures on the subject were.)[/quote]

Quantum Fluctuation is pretty much against the First law. now ill be the first to admit that I don’t have a very good understanding of quantum fluctuation but from what I know so far it just doesn’t seem that these two could co-exist.

818

Quantum fluctuation has actually been observed though it explains amongst other things the Casimir Effect, the Coulomb Force between electric particals.

Yes quantum fluctuation appears to break the first law of thermodynamics but only for a very small period of time and as you cannot measure accurately the energy of a system at an accurately measured time there actually isn’t an issue.

I realise that I am not explaining this very well but please note I studied it over 10 years ago and I am not a teacher.

819

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

I know many atheists; I know many anglo-catholics. Ephem, how many Anglo-catholics do you know? And how well?[/quote]

…i was raised Roman-catholic, does that count? My parents are from a generation who were schooled by nuns and priests. They went to church twice on sunday, and every morning before school. The local priest regularly payed visits to inquire when the next child was due, and the small village mindset was compounded by the puritanical papal orders from Rome. Many of this generation were thoroughly messed up. And my list was about how i perceive some men on this forum, PWI…

820

[quote]John S. wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
John S. wrote:

You are all those things too. What you just explained right there is the human nature. Because I have faith I am Irrational. You believe in science “Theorys” which change ever what ever 10-20 years? One of us is easy to manipulate and it is not me.

Nice.

I will say the same thing to your posts in this thread too. Its good to see someone who knows what there talking about here in this thread.[/quote]

…it isn’t you two, that’s for sure (-: The beauty of change is that science can’t stagnate. It’s always aware of the fact that more knowledge can be attained. Religious people think they’ve explained it all by claiming “God did it” and stop asking questions. If you really think there isn’t more to human nature than the list i compiled, you’re a sad bunch of primates…